2020 Tour Rumor Thread

Comments

Horde Festival was great! Seeing Neil w/ Crazy Horse in Tinley Park in a legit thunderstorm was awesome as shit! That part of the show would absolutely be canceled these days. Would REALLY love a copy of this performance.

I was also 15 then.

That show was taped. Actually I think every show on the HORDE tour was taped (the Neil sets anyway).

Well shit! It was awesome reading that article. Thank you for the link @Yefa . I see where it says - tape exists: yes but I have not been able to locate said tape. I was able to find a brief highlight of the show from MTV news on YouTube before.

This won't be popular but they really should charge more for tickets and offer VIP and Platinum packages. The per show earnings would definitely motivate them to do a proper arena tour and less festivals.

Paying $250 for premium quality vs $100 for standing in the mud like sardines for 10 hours with bratty children ****ing in bottles who dont buy albums. Premium tickets for premium band worth every penny.

They are nearing the end of their touring careers. How many US shows do they have left in them... 70? Why waste it on kids shoving you to the ground who will never buy an album anyway?

70 shows left? Lol

Count instead of laugh my friend.

US shows.

They barely play that many in their 50s. How many US shows (not benefits not abbreviated festivals, US shows with PJ fans):

Sorry about that experience. Imagine it replicated in the mud, with no bathrooms nearby, jammed in with aggressive teens with poor sanitary habits.

Why do you keep assuming festivals are like this after account after account on here of people saying you are WRONG???

We get it. You don't like festivals and would rather see Pearl Jam in a big concrete metal building with piss poor sound.

Different strokes for different folks. Accept it and move on.

I've been to good festivals and bad festivals. If anything is constant it's that sound inside beats sound outside.

That is not a constant, it all depends on your vantage point in any setting. At Randall's Island 1996, the bands sound was fantastic and full. I was back of the mob both nights probably 20 yards left of and up from the mixing desk tower.

I've been in arenas at times when it has been a jumbled mess, in 1998 to me, if you were not in the first part of the floor or side 100s near the overhead stacks the sound could be quite distorted.

Fenway Park 2016 I was A's row 13, Mike's side. That was the best I have ever heard Pearl Jam's live audio sound. Every instrument was crystal clear.

Well, sure, if someone botches something the sound can be bad anywhere. And I've certainly been to outdoor shows that sound good (Fenway), but it's a simple matter of acoustics. The vast majority of indoor shows will sound better than the vast majority of outdoor shows.

This won't be popular but they really should charge more for tickets and offer VIP and Platinum packages. The per show earnings would definitely motivate them to do a proper arena tour and less festivals.

Paying $250 for premium quality vs $100 for standing in the mud like sardines for 10 hours with bratty children ****ing in bottles who dont buy albums. Premium tickets for premium band worth every penny.

They are nearing the end of their touring careers. How many US shows do they have left in them... 70? Why waste it on kids shoving you to the ground who will never buy an album anyway?

70 shows left? Lol

Count instead of laugh my friend.

US shows.

They barely play that many in their 50s. How many US shows (not benefits not abbreviated festivals, US shows with PJ fans):

40+ in the last 5 years?

How many do you think they will be playing in their late 50s & 60s?

The band members are already in their mid to late 50's and Boom is in his 60's.

I'd just like to point out, that being in your 50's doesn't make you an old person or mean you are no longer capable of being a musician. There are many fans on here who are working and having successful careers and lives and are in their 50's. Active healthy lives. Or whatever lives they choose, but are in complete control of their faculties both mentally and physically. I mean, come on.

They are musicians so they know how to do this, it's muscle memory. A tour might sound exhausting if you are not a person who has been doing that your entire adult life, but they have been touring and traveling and surfing and skateboarding just fine. When they do.

They are not doing a cirque d soleil show - they are playing instruments and singing songs. They know how to do this and their age is not a valid excuse.

I'm in my 50's and it really hits a nerve when their age is constantly referred to as if they are old men, in their twilight years. That's ridiculous. Why they aren't dong more of what we want has nothing do with age, refer to Jeff's zest for creating and touring in that article. I don't know what that answer is, but it's not because they are in their *gasp* 50's.

Please stop (general request, not specific to anyone) insulting a large portion of the fan base and the band by writing off anyone over 50 as incapable of working hard and thriving. .And being led off to some old home for legacy acts.

Thank you.

I am over 50 and do not see any insult pointing out if they arent enthused about recording or touring in their 50s why would they change course at an older age? Its just an opinion on a forum. I could be wrong. I dont see it as writing them off, just simply looking at the clock, looking at recent history and noting what the time is.

As far as working hard, I have no idea what their days consist of, just not the traditional band type of tasks. For all I know Stone could be spending months upon months curating all the master tapes. That is difficult work

This won't be popular but they really should charge more for tickets and offer VIP and Platinum packages. The per show earnings would definitely motivate them to do a proper arena tour and less festivals.

Paying $250 for premium quality vs $100 for standing in the mud like sardines for 10 hours with bratty children ****ing in bottles who dont buy albums. Premium tickets for premium band worth every penny.

They are nearing the end of their touring careers. How many US shows do they have left in them... 70? Why waste it on kids shoving you to the ground who will never buy an album anyway?

70 shows left? Lol

Count instead of laugh my friend.

US shows.

They barely play that many in their 50s. How many US shows (not benefits not abbreviated festivals, US shows with PJ fans):

40+ in the last 5 years?

How many do you think they will be playing in their late 50s & 60s?

The band members are already in their mid to late 50's and Boom is in his 60's.

I'd just like to point out, that being in your 50's doesn't make you an old person or mean you are no longer capable of being a musician. There are many fans on here who are working and having successful careers and lives and are in their 50's. Active healthy lives. Or whatever lives they choose, but are in complete control of their faculties both mentally and physically. I mean, come on.

They are musicians so they know how to do this, it's muscle memory. A tour might sound exhausting if you are not a person who has been doing that your entire adult life, but they have been touring and traveling and surfing and skateboarding just fine. When they do.

They are not doing a cirque d soleil show - they are playing instruments and singing songs. They know how to do this and their age is not a valid excuse.

I'm in my 50's and it really hits a nerve when their age is constantly referred to as if they are old men, in their twilight years. That's ridiculous. Why they aren't dong more of what we want has nothing do with age, refer to Jeff's zest for creating and touring in that article. I don't know what that answer is, but it's not because they are in their *gasp* 50's.

Please stop (general request, not specific to anyone) insulting a large portion of the fan base and the band by writing off anyone over 50 as incapable of working hard and thriving. .And being led off to some old home for legacy acts.

Thank you.

I am over 50 and do not see any insult pointing out if they arent enthused about recording or touring in their 50s why would they change course at an older age? Its just an opinion on a forum. I could be wrong. I dont see it as writing them off, just simply looking at the clock, looking at recent history and noting what the time is.

As far as working hard, I have no idea what their days consist of, just not the traditional band type of tasks. For all I know Stone could be spending months upon months curating all the master tapes. That is difficult work

I wasn't talking to your comment directly there were a bunch referencing age and it started to bug me.

One reason they would be more inclined to record and tour is that they will be empty nesters. I don't know the age of all their children and it's really not my business. Having children a bit later in life lets you see how quickly the 'good' years go by and so having younger children makes you want to enjoy the time you have with them while they still care to spend time with you.

If this were the reason for any of their decisions, there will come a time soon when kids will be off on their own and you start to rediscover what you really enjoyed before you had kids.

It's just one thought. Didn't mean to come across so harshly on your comment. Sorry.

Sorry about that experience. Imagine it replicated in the mud, with no bathrooms nearby, jammed in with aggressive teens with poor sanitary habits.

Why do you keep assuming festivals are like this after account after account on here of people saying you are WRONG???

We get it. You don't like festivals and would rather see Pearl Jam in a big concrete metal building with piss poor sound.

Different strokes for different folks. Accept it and move on.

I've been to good festivals and bad festivals. If anything is constant it's that sound inside beats sound outside.

That is not a constant, it all depends on your vantage point in any setting. At Randall's Island 1996, the bands sound was fantastic and full. I was back of the mob both nights probably 20 yards left of and up from the mixing desk tower.

I've been in arenas at times when it has been a jumbled mess, in 1998 to me, if you were not in the first part of the floor or side 100s near the overhead stacks the sound could be quite distorted.

Fenway Park 2016 I was A's row 13, Mike's side. That was the best I have ever heard Pearl Jam's live audio sound. Every instrument was crystal clear.

Well, sure, if someone botches something the sound can be bad anywhere. And I've certainly been to outdoor shows that sound good (Fenway), but it's a simple matter of acoustics. The vast majority of indoor shows will sound better than the vast majority of outdoor shows.

That is a patently false premise. If it is done correctly both are fine.

Sorry about that experience. Imagine it replicated in the mud, with no bathrooms nearby, jammed in with aggressive teens with poor sanitary habits.

Why do you keep assuming festivals are like this after account after account on here of people saying you are WRONG???

We get it. You don't like festivals and would rather see Pearl Jam in a big concrete metal building with piss poor sound.

Different strokes for different folks. Accept it and move on.

I've been to good festivals and bad festivals. If anything is constant it's that sound inside beats sound outside.

That is not a constant, it all depends on your vantage point in any setting. At Randall's Island 1996, the bands sound was fantastic and full. I was back of the mob both nights probably 20 yards left of and up from the mixing desk tower.

I've been in arenas at times when it has been a jumbled mess, in 1998 to me, if you were not in the first part of the floor or side 100s near the overhead stacks the sound could be quite distorted.

Fenway Park 2016 I was A's row 13, Mike's side. That was the best I have ever heard Pearl Jam's live audio sound. Every instrument was crystal clear.

Well, sure, if someone botches something the sound can be bad anywhere. And I've certainly been to outdoor shows that sound good (Fenway), but it's a simple matter of acoustics. The vast majority of indoor shows will sound better than the vast majority of outdoor shows.

That is a patently false premise. If it is done correctly both are fine.

"The problems of dealing with outdoor performance areas are considerably greater than those encountered in indoor spaces. Indoor spaces provide surface reflections and absorption of sound, both of which can be manipulated through proper design to yield the desired results with respect to reverberation time and sounddispersion. In the case of outdoor performing areas, there are no reflective surfaces (except in the cases of certain amphitheaters), and the need for sound amplification is often necessitated. A reflective bandshell is generally required to direct the program material toward the audience. The lack of wall reflections tends to result in a lack of musical sonority that is usually present in a well‐designed indoor auditorium."

Sorry about that experience. Imagine it replicated in the mud, with no bathrooms nearby, jammed in with aggressive teens with poor sanitary habits.

Why do you keep assuming festivals are like this after account after account on here of people saying you are WRONG???

We get it. You don't like festivals and would rather see Pearl Jam in a big concrete metal building with piss poor sound.

Different strokes for different folks. Accept it and move on.

I've been to good festivals and bad festivals. If anything is constant it's that sound inside beats sound outside.

That is not a constant, it all depends on your vantage point in any setting. At Randall's Island 1996, the bands sound was fantastic and full. I was back of the mob both nights probably 20 yards left of and up from the mixing desk tower.

I've been in arenas at times when it has been a jumbled mess, in 1998 to me, if you were not in the first part of the floor or side 100s near the overhead stacks the sound could be quite distorted.

Fenway Park 2016 I was A's row 13, Mike's side. That was the best I have ever heard Pearl Jam's live audio sound. Every instrument was crystal clear.

Well, sure, if someone botches something the sound can be bad anywhere. And I've certainly been to outdoor shows that sound good (Fenway), but it's a simple matter of acoustics. The vast majority of indoor shows will sound better than the vast majority of outdoor shows.

That is a patently false premise. If it is done correctly both are fine.

"The problems of dealing with outdoor performance areas are considerably greater than those encountered in indoor spaces. Indoor spaces provide surface reflections and absorption of sound, both of which can be manipulated through proper design to yield the desired results with respect to reverberation time and sounddispersion. In the case of outdoor performing areas, there are no reflective surfaces (except in the cases of certain amphitheaters), and the need for sound amplification is often necessitated. A reflective bandshell is generally required to direct the program material toward the audience. The lack of wall reflections tends to result in a lack of musical sonority that is usually present in a well‐designed indoor auditorium."

What a great quote. Which proves my point. Read the word clues. "the problems" "considerably greater" "manipulated through proper design" "need for for sound amplification".

So if your case is, it is easier to play an unamplified acoustic guitar in Carnegie Hall than it is in Solider Field, you win. The point that was actually being made is that it is 2019, and quality sound systems can overcome design flaws no matter the venue. Ergo, the sound will not be inherently worse outside or better inside if the people in charge of the sound know what they are doing.

This won't be popular but they really should charge more for tickets and offer VIP and Platinum packages. The per show earnings would definitely motivate them to do a proper arena tour and less festivals.

Paying $250 for premium quality vs $100 for standing in the mud like sardines for 10 hours with bratty children ****ing in bottles who dont buy albums. Premium tickets for premium band worth every penny.

They are nearing the end of their touring careers. How many US shows do they have left in them... 70? Why waste it on kids shoving you to the ground who will never buy an album anyway?

70 shows left? Lol

Count instead of laugh my friend.

US shows.

They barely play that many in their 50s. How many US shows (not benefits not abbreviated festivals, US shows with PJ fans):

40+ in the last 5 years?

How many do you think they will be playing in their late 50s & 60s?

The band members are already in their mid to late 50's and Boom is in his 60's.

I'd just like to point out, that being in your 50's doesn't make you an old person or mean you are no longer capable of being a musician. There are many fans on here who are working and having successful careers and lives and are in their 50's. Active healthy lives. Or whatever lives they choose, but are in complete control of their faculties both mentally and physically. I mean, come on.

They are musicians so they know how to do this, it's muscle memory. A tour might sound exhausting if you are not a person who has been doing that your entire adult life, but they have been touring and traveling and surfing and skateboarding just fine. When they do.

They are not doing a cirque d soleil show - they are playing instruments and singing songs. They know how to do this and their age is not a valid excuse.

I'm in my 50's and it really hits a nerve when their age is constantly referred to as if they are old men, in their twilight years. That's ridiculous. Why they aren't dong more of what we want has nothing do with age, refer to Jeff's zest for creating and touring in that article. I don't know what that answer is, but it's not because they are in their *gasp* 50's.

Please stop (general request, not specific to anyone) insulting a large portion of the fan base and the band by writing off anyone over 50 as incapable of working hard and thriving. .And being led off to some old home for legacy acts.

Thank you.

I am over 50 and do not see any insult pointing out if they arent enthused about recording or touring in their 50s why would they change course at an older age? Its just an opinion on a forum. I could be wrong. I dont see it as writing them off, just simply looking at the clock, looking at recent history and noting what the time is.

As far as working hard, I have no idea what their days consist of, just not the traditional band type of tasks. For all I know Stone could be spending months upon months curating all the master tapes. That is difficult work

I wasn't talking to your comment directly there were a bunch referencing age and it started to bug me.

One reason they would be more inclined to record and tour is that they will be empty nesters. I don't know the age of all their children and it's really not my business. Having children a bit later in life lets you see how quickly the 'good' years go by and so having younger children makes you want to enjoy the time you have with them while they still care to spend time with you.

If this were the reason for any of their decisions, there will come a time soon when kids will be off on their own and you start to rediscover what you really enjoyed before you had kids.

It's just one thought. Didn't mean to come across so harshly on your comment. Sorry.

Sorry about that experience. Imagine it replicated in the mud, with no bathrooms nearby, jammed in with aggressive teens with poor sanitary habits.

Why do you keep assuming festivals are like this after account after account on here of people saying you are WRONG???

We get it. You don't like festivals and would rather see Pearl Jam in a big concrete metal building with piss poor sound.

Different strokes for different folks. Accept it and move on.

I've been to good festivals and bad festivals. If anything is constant it's that sound inside beats sound outside.

That is not a constant, it all depends on your vantage point in any setting. At Randall's Island 1996, the bands sound was fantastic and full. I was back of the mob both nights probably 20 yards left of and up from the mixing desk tower.

I've been in arenas at times when it has been a jumbled mess, in 1998 to me, if you were not in the first part of the floor or side 100s near the overhead stacks the sound could be quite distorted.

Fenway Park 2016 I was A's row 13, Mike's side. That was the best I have ever heard Pearl Jam's live audio sound. Every instrument was crystal clear.

Well, sure, if someone botches something the sound can be bad anywhere. And I've certainly been to outdoor shows that sound good (Fenway), but it's a simple matter of acoustics. The vast majority of indoor shows will sound better than the vast majority of outdoor shows.

That is a patently false premise. If it is done correctly both are fine.

"The problems of dealing with outdoor performance areas are considerably greater than those encountered in indoor spaces. Indoor spaces provide surface reflections and absorption of sound, both of which can be manipulated through proper design to yield the desired results with respect to reverberation time and sounddispersion. In the case of outdoor performing areas, there are no reflective surfaces (except in the cases of certain amphitheaters), and the need for sound amplification is often necessitated. A reflective bandshell is generally required to direct the program material toward the audience. The lack of wall reflections tends to result in a lack of musical sonority that is usually present in a well‐designed indoor auditorium."

What a great quote. Which proves my point. Read the word clues. "the problems" "considerably greater" "manipulated through proper design" "need for for sound amplification".

So if your case is, it is easier to play an unamplified acoustic guitar in Carnegie Hall than it is in Solider Field, you win. The point that was actually being made is that it is 2019, and quality sound systems can overcome design flaws no matter the venue. Ergo, the sound will not be inherently worse outside or better inside if the people in charge of the sound know what they are doing.

How do we account for wind? This creates two problems IMO: the interference caused by the actual sound the wind is making and the distortion of the sound waves being moved by the wind.

Sorry about that experience. Imagine it replicated in the mud, with no bathrooms nearby, jammed in with aggressive teens with poor sanitary habits.

Why do you keep assuming festivals are like this after account after account on here of people saying you are WRONG???

We get it. You don't like festivals and would rather see Pearl Jam in a big concrete metal building with piss poor sound.

Different strokes for different folks. Accept it and move on.

I've been to good festivals and bad festivals. If anything is constant it's that sound inside beats sound outside.

That is not a constant, it all depends on your vantage point in any setting. At Randall's Island 1996, the bands sound was fantastic and full. I was back of the mob both nights probably 20 yards left of and up from the mixing desk tower.

I've been in arenas at times when it has been a jumbled mess, in 1998 to me, if you were not in the first part of the floor or side 100s near the overhead stacks the sound could be quite distorted.

Fenway Park 2016 I was A's row 13, Mike's side. That was the best I have ever heard Pearl Jam's live audio sound. Every instrument was crystal clear.

Well, sure, if someone botches something the sound can be bad anywhere. And I've certainly been to outdoor shows that sound good (Fenway), but it's a simple matter of acoustics. The vast majority of indoor shows will sound better than the vast majority of outdoor shows.

That is a patently false premise. If it is done correctly both are fine.

"The problems of dealing with outdoor performance areas are considerably greater than those encountered in indoor spaces. Indoor spaces provide surface reflections and absorption of sound, both of which can be manipulated through proper design to yield the desired results with respect to reverberation time and sounddispersion. In the case of outdoor performing areas, there are no reflective surfaces (except in the cases of certain amphitheaters), and the need for sound amplification is often necessitated. A reflective bandshell is generally required to direct the program material toward the audience. The lack of wall reflections tends to result in a lack of musical sonority that is usually present in a well‐designed indoor auditorium."

What a great quote. Which proves my point. Read the word clues. "the problems" "considerably greater" "manipulated through proper design" "need for for sound amplification".

So if your case is, it is easier to play an unamplified acoustic guitar in Carnegie Hall than it is in Solider Field, you win. The point that was actually being made is that it is 2019, and quality sound systems can overcome design flaws no matter the venue. Ergo, the sound will not be inherently worse outside or better inside if the people in charge of the sound know what they are doing.

How do we account for wind? This creates two problems IMO: the interference caused by the actual sound the wind is making and the distortion of the sound waves being moved by the wind.

This is known as "fuck, the weather is not optimal". The risks are obviously greater for being outdoors.

Please...more rumors and less debate about sound engineering and whether 50 is the new 40 etc.

Please, post one if you've heard one. We're just killing time till there's something to get excited about.

I heard on Sirius XM the other day that there will be a livestream of the Watkins Glen Woodstock. That doesn’t mean PJ will be there and they didn’t say whether it would be a FREE livestream or specify video vs audio but I found this a bit interesting.

Please...more rumors and less debate about sound engineering and whether 50 is the new 40 etc.

Please, post one if you've heard one. We're just killing time till there's something to get excited about.

I heard on Sirius XM the other day that there will be a livestream of the Watkins Glen Woodstock. That doesn’t mean PJ will be there and they didn’t say whether it would be a FREE livestream or specify video vs audio but I found this a bit interesting.

On a side note I think Ed is exaggerating Bruce’s surfing resume. He ended up practicing in the surfboard factory because the owner was his first manager and Bruce also needed a place to live so he slept in the back. And they had a steady gig at a bar down the road that they could walk to and from every night.

On a side note I think Ed is exaggerating Bruce’s surfing resume. He ended up practicing in the surfboard factory because the owner was his first manager and Bruce also needed a place to live so he slept in the back. And they had a steady gig at a bar down the road that they could walk to and from every night.

Ed has smoked a fair amount of grass and has a penchant for embellishing history from time to time.

Nervous about this being interpreted as anything other than curious but does it not strike anyone else as curious we have gone from "can't dent me on forthcoming album" to absolute crickets for the band and Ed touring solo alnost same journey he took two years ago.

Nervous about this being interpreted as anything other than curious but does it not strike anyone else as curious we have gone from "can't dent me on forthcoming album" to absolute crickets for the band and Ed touring solo alnost same journey he took two years ago.lbSomething about the US he is not happy about the last 2 years??

It appears the album is not being done as quickly as they thought. It also appears that they do not plan to do a tour until it is done. I would not look at any other way then that and definitely not a NA issue. The question I have is why are they not hammering down and getting this album done?

Nervous about this being interpreted as anything other than curious but does it not strike anyone else as curious we have gone from "can't dent me on forthcoming album" to absolute crickets for the band and Ed touring solo alnost same journey he took two years ago.

Something about the US he is not happy about the last 2 years??

Could be anything, really. Maybe European gigs pay more? Maybe it's nice to do some globetrotting around a tour while you can? Maybe with your family? Has to be easier solo, if that's the case. It's anyone's guess, but I can easily see different people having different priorities when you reach a certain level of success.